Ahh, the endless American pastime... arguing whether the Civil War was over states rights or slavery.

It was about state rights to practice slavery, as much as the South will deny it...Whether or not it was right, the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter and thus shouldn't have been surprised to see the Union go to war with them.

Ahh, the endless American pastime... arguing whether the Civil War was over states rights or slavery.

It was about state rights to practice slavery, as much as the South will deny it...Whether or not it was right, the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter and thus shouldn't have been surprised to see the Union go to war with them.

and on and on it goes...

Quote

Quote

Next topic: arguing whether the US was founded as a Christian nation.

Treaty of Tripoli states we aren't

And the US has NEVER stated an untruth in a treaty

Although, I do agree that we are not. I got in big trouble in my Christian high school when I told them that I thought the whole Christian nation teaching was nonsense. I believe I got a talking to by the principal for being "disruptive".

Ahh, the endless American pastime... arguing whether the Civil War was over states rights or slavery.

Next topic: arguing whether the US was founded as a Christian nation.

The majority of the American forefathers were Deists.

A point of clarification, I don't have any desire to have that conversation although it is fun to get people riled up on the topic regardless of what side of the fence they are on. I was merely stating it is another one of those topics that often get very heated without either side ever willing to listen to the other side's perspective on it.

Some people get confused with the Northern victory and mistake it for the righteousness of their intentions.

Yes, if you base your historical perspective on what individual soldiers have in their heads that motivate them

But on a lager scale, the South started the War when a President got elected who was against expanding slavery West.. That's what did it.

There were also Southern Political idea's about States Rights but that did not start the War nor was it the actual cause. Slavery was.

The funny thing is that their idea's about States Rights greatly contributed to their defeat. It turned out to be a Cluster ... The States, being "Sovereign" wouldn't cooperate with each other...So you ended up with bare foot soldiers in rags while NC had warehouses full of shoes that they were saving for their "own" soldiers...

In other words, you are saying that the South, believing that the government was instituted by the consent of those governed to secure their rights, decided to abolish it and institute a new government as the Union became destructive towards the ends of securing their rights?

I think you are right in that this was the primary causus belli.

I understand the many ways Treason can be rationalized. It's like how heretics within Christianity argue from scripture.. Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let other Nations get set up in the entire hemisphere much less within our boarders. The Balkanization of the United States would have been a tragedy on an immense scale. The World would be a far different place, much worse by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of all the enslaved peoples and the new slaves the Confederates coveted..

So defeating evil is always a good thing. Paperwork to follow.

Be careful about slinging charges of "treason". Treason was by no means a clear-cut matter in the case of the War between the States. Keep in mind that Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia all existed as political entities (colonies, then states) for a very long time before the Constitution was written. Loyalty to one's state can legitimately take precedence over loyalty to one's (former) country. The South wasn't trying to overthrow the government in DC. It was trying to go its own way after decades of frustration with northern political domination.

Yes, thank God the North won so we could live happily in our NSA police state. Liberty, privacy and freedom are overrated anyway.

Slavery may have been the moral cause that Lincoln wrapped his war of aggression in but he sure as heck didn't want to let the South go away and lose that tariff money that was being sent North. Funny how he is often depicted as the great emancipator when he himself said that "If I could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would. If I could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do that too."

Anybody interested in reading the none sugarcoated, victor's version of Lincoln should read The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo

And no, I'm not a Southerner. My great-great grandfather fought and was severely wounded fighting for the Union.

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.

The South wasn't trying to overthrow the government in DC. It was trying to go its own way after decades of frustration with northern political domination

...it's own way to practice slavery and expand the practice westward and eventually into Latin America.

We don't allow any other nation to build up an empire on our hemisphere, what makes you think the US should have made any exception for the Confederacy? No one is saying that the South couldn't have seceded--they are perfectly free to. But, they shouldn't expect for it to be peaceful and for the North to just accept it. You seceded and fired upon a federal army at Fort. Sumter, you started a war and took up arms. Don't expect sympathy because you got your behinds handed to you on a platter.

Ahh, the endless American pastime... arguing whether the Civil War was over states rights or slavery.

Next topic: arguing whether the US was founded as a Christian nation.

That's really pretty easy to understand. Would there have been a War if the thing that divided the nation was merelyr States Rights vs a strong federal government... It isnt even close. No one would have shed blood over States Rights. It's a background issue.

The country was founded upon the idea of religious freedom. Christian principles informed the founders. For example we don't cut off someones hand for stealing like a nation informed by Islam.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Yes, thank God the North won so we could live happily in our NSA police state. Liberty, privacy and freedom are overrated anyway.

Slavery may have been the moral cause that Lincoln wrapped his war of aggression in but he sure as heck didn't want to let the South go away and lose that tariff money that was being sent North. Funny how he is often depicted as the great emancipator when he himself said that "If I could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would. If I could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do that too."

Anybody interested in reading the none sugarcoated, victor's version of Lincoln should read The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo

And no, I'm not a Southerner. My great-great grandfather fought and was severely wounded fighting for the Union.

Yes, thank God the North won so we could live happily in our NSA police state.

I think they call that a "First World" complaint. Your sense of proportion is a little out of whack..IMHO

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Some people get confused with the Northern victory and mistake it for the righteousness of their intentions.

Yes, if you base your historical perspective on what individual soldiers have in their heads that motivate them

But on a lager scale, the South started the War when a President got elected who was against expanding slavery West.. That's what did it.

There were also Southern Political idea's about States Rights but that did not start the War nor was it the actual cause. Slavery was.

The funny thing is that their idea's about States Rights greatly contributed to their defeat. It turned out to be a Cluster ... The States, being "Sovereign" wouldn't cooperate with each other...So you ended up with bare foot soldiers in rags while NC had warehouses full of shoes that they were saving for their "own" soldiers...

In other words, you are saying that the South, believing that the government was instituted by the consent of those governed to secure their rights, decided to abolish it and institute a new government as the Union became destructive towards the ends of securing their rights?

I think you are right in that this was the primary causus belli.

I understand the many ways Treason can be rationalized. It's like how heretics within Christianity argue from scripture.. Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let other Nations get set up in the entire hemisphere much less within our boarders. The Balkanization of the United States would have been a tragedy on an immense scale. The World would be a far different place, much worse by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of all the enslaved peoples and the new slaves the Confederates coveted..

So defeating evil is always a good thing. Paperwork to follow.

There are many ways that tyranny can be rationalized. It's like how the heretics within Christianity argue from scripture... Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let our rightful King maintain dominion over us. The subjection of the people to a government they did not concede to has been a tragedy on the immense scale. The World would have been a far different place, much better by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of the Native Americans already subjected to genocide and the future treaties the Federals eventually did break.

Yes, thank God the North won so we could live happily in our NSA police state.

Do you really think this nation would be any better off or freer if the South had won? At the very best, things would be just the same. More than likely what'd happen though is that Civil Rights, social liberties, and progress would be delayed by an extra 100 years.

Ahh, the endless American pastime... arguing whether the Civil War was over states rights or slavery.

Next topic: arguing whether the US was founded as a Christian nation.

That's really pretty easy to understand. Would there have been a War if the thing that divided the nation was merelyr States Rights vs a strong federal government... It isnt even close. No one would have shed blood over States Rights. It's a background issue.

The country was founded upon the idea of religious freedom. Christian principles informed the founders. For example we don't cut off someones hand for stealing like a nation informed by Islam.

Yet you contend that a bunch of dirt poor farm boys who didn't own slaves shed their blood and died to maintain that very institution. That doesn't make sense.

I remember hearing a certain anecdote regarding the typical southern soldier's reason for fighting. A Union officer asked a southern prisoner why he was fighting this war. The Southern soldier, a bit mystified at being asked, calmly replied: "Because you're down here!"

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.

Some people get confused with the Northern victory and mistake it for the righteousness of their intentions.

Yes, if you base your historical perspective on what individual soldiers have in their heads that motivate them

But on a lager scale, the South started the War when a President got elected who was against expanding slavery West.. That's what did it.

There were also Southern Political idea's about States Rights but that did not start the War nor was it the actual cause. Slavery was.

The funny thing is that their idea's about States Rights greatly contributed to their defeat. It turned out to be a Cluster ... The States, being "Sovereign" wouldn't cooperate with each other...So you ended up with bare foot soldiers in rags while NC had warehouses full of shoes that they were saving for their "own" soldiers...

In other words, you are saying that the South, believing that the government was instituted by the consent of those governed to secure their rights, decided to abolish it and institute a new government as the Union became destructive towards the ends of securing their rights?

I think you are right in that this was the primary causus belli.

I understand the many ways Treason can be rationalized. It's like how heretics within Christianity argue from scripture.. Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let other Nations get set up in the entire hemisphere much less within our boarders. The Balkanization of the United States would have been a tragedy on an immense scale. The World would be a far different place, much worse by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of all the enslaved peoples and the new slaves the Confederates coveted..

So defeating evil is always a good thing. Paperwork to follow.

There are many ways that tyranny can be rationalized. It's like how the heretics within Christianity argue from scripture... Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let our rightful King maintain dominion over us. The subjection of the people to a government they did not concede to has been a tragedy on the immense scale. The World would have been a far different place, much better by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of the Native Americans already subjected to genocide and the future treaties the Federals eventually did break.

So fighting against evil is always a good thing.

Even if you lose.

What does one do when both sides are evil? That's how I feel about the Civil War.

Some people get confused with the Northern victory and mistake it for the righteousness of their intentions.

Yes, if you base your historical perspective on what individual soldiers have in their heads that motivate them

But on a lager scale, the South started the War when a President got elected who was against expanding slavery West.. That's what did it.

There were also Southern Political idea's about States Rights but that did not start the War nor was it the actual cause. Slavery was.

The funny thing is that their idea's about States Rights greatly contributed to their defeat. It turned out to be a Cluster ... The States, being "Sovereign" wouldn't cooperate with each other...So you ended up with bare foot soldiers in rags while NC had warehouses full of shoes that they were saving for their "own" soldiers...

In other words, you are saying that the South, believing that the government was instituted by the consent of those governed to secure their rights, decided to abolish it and institute a new government as the Union became destructive towards the ends of securing their rights?

I think you are right in that this was the primary causus belli.

I understand the many ways Treason can be rationalized. It's like how heretics within Christianity argue from scripture.. Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let other Nations get set up in the entire hemisphere much less within our boarders. The Balkanization of the United States would have been a tragedy on an immense scale. The World would be a far different place, much worse by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of all the enslaved peoples and the new slaves the Confederates coveted..

So defeating evil is always a good thing. Paperwork to follow.

There are many ways that tyranny can be rationalized. It's like how the heretics within Christianity argue from scripture... Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let our rightful King maintain dominion over us. The subjection of the people to a government they did not concede to has been a tragedy on the immense scale. The World would have been a far different place, much better by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of the Native Americans already subjected to genocide and the future treaties the Federals eventually did break.

So fighting against evil is always a good thing.

Even if you lose.

Its amazing how people who are purportedly "Conservatives" dislike the United States and wish it had collapsed long ago.

I rest my case

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

The world is bigger, much bigger than any one nation, including the USA, China or any other. Conservatives may found anywhere on the planet and their attitude to any one power does not bely their conservatism. However I find innate anti-Americanism too often confuses a dislike of one administration's policies with an irrational dislike of a big, complex society and its many and varied people.

I for one would hate for the USA to wane, and would not stay silent if I became aware of any attempt to attack it, or its population. You can argue, fall out or withdraw from a friend but a friend remains a friend nevertheless. And that is how I regard America and its people.

Some people get confused with the Northern victory and mistake it for the righteousness of their intentions.

Yes, if you base your historical perspective on what individual soldiers have in their heads that motivate them

But on a lager scale, the South started the War when a President got elected who was against expanding slavery West.. That's what did it.

There were also Southern Political idea's about States Rights but that did not start the War nor was it the actual cause. Slavery was.

The funny thing is that their idea's about States Rights greatly contributed to their defeat. It turned out to be a Cluster ... The States, being "Sovereign" wouldn't cooperate with each other...So you ended up with bare foot soldiers in rags while NC had warehouses full of shoes that they were saving for their "own" soldiers...

In other words, you are saying that the South, believing that the government was instituted by the consent of those governed to secure their rights, decided to abolish it and institute a new government as the Union became destructive towards the ends of securing their rights?

I think you are right in that this was the primary causus belli.

I understand the many ways Treason can be rationalized. It's like how heretics within Christianity argue from scripture.. Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let other Nations get set up in the entire hemisphere much less within our boarders. The Balkanization of the United States would have been a tragedy on an immense scale. The World would be a far different place, much worse by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of all the enslaved peoples and the new slaves the Confederates coveted..

So defeating evil is always a good thing. Paperwork to follow.

There are many ways that tyranny can be rationalized. It's like how the heretics within Christianity argue from scripture... Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let our rightful King maintain dominion over us. The subjection of the people to a government they did not concede to has been a tragedy on the immense scale. The World would have been a far different place, much better by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of the Native Americans already subjected to genocide and the future treaties the Federals eventually did break.

So fighting against evil is always a good thing.

Even if you lose.

Its amazing how people who are purportedly "Conservatives" dislike the United States and wish it had collapsed long ago.

I rest my case

The war was fought over the ideals of the nation. If the government was not going to rule by the consent of the people then it had already died. If the North had been conciliatory to the South perhaps both the Union and the ideal of the nation could have been salvaged. When Lincoln sent military forces to invade the Southern states, it was assured that one of the two would die.

Yet you contend that a bunch of dirt poor farm boys who didn't own slaves shed their blood and died to maintain that very institution. That doesn't make sense.

Dirt poor farm boys don't decide matters of War and Peace. The are not the "Deciders" as a great man once said.

The ordinary soldier is fodder. Why they enlist is not all that important unless they refuse to enlist. Then they have a draft.

What is important was why the Southern Oligarchy chose for War. They wanted to maintain the institution of Slavery. They didnt chose War because of high tariffs. They didnt chose War because they had a philosophic difference over the sovereignty of States. They chose War because their wealth and their economy ran on slave labor....

Oligarch:

Cannon fodder:

« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 05:24:18 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Some people get confused with the Northern victory and mistake it for the righteousness of their intentions.

Yes, if you base your historical perspective on what individual soldiers have in their heads that motivate them

But on a lager scale, the South started the War when a President got elected who was against expanding slavery West.. That's what did it.

There were also Southern Political idea's about States Rights but that did not start the War nor was it the actual cause. Slavery was.

The funny thing is that their idea's about States Rights greatly contributed to their defeat. It turned out to be a Cluster ... The States, being "Sovereign" wouldn't cooperate with each other...So you ended up with bare foot soldiers in rags while NC had warehouses full of shoes that they were saving for their "own" soldiers...

In other words, you are saying that the South, believing that the government was instituted by the consent of those governed to secure their rights, decided to abolish it and institute a new government as the Union became destructive towards the ends of securing their rights?

I think you are right in that this was the primary causus belli.

I understand the many ways Treason can be rationalized. It's like how heretics within Christianity argue from scripture.. Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let other Nations get set up in the entire hemisphere much less within our boarders. The Balkanization of the United States would have been a tragedy on an immense scale. The World would be a far different place, much worse by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of all the enslaved peoples and the new slaves the Confederates coveted..

So defeating evil is always a good thing. Paperwork to follow.

There are many ways that tyranny can be rationalized. It's like how the heretics within Christianity argue from scripture... Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let our rightful King maintain dominion over us. The subjection of the people to a government they did not concede to has been a tragedy on the immense scale. The World would have been a far different place, much better by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of the Native Americans already subjected to genocide and the future treaties the Federals eventually did break.

So fighting against evil is always a good thing.

Even if you lose.

Its amazing how people who are purportedly "Conservatives" dislike the United States and wish it had collapsed long ago.

I rest my case

You got me. Can't argue with logic like that.

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.

Some people get confused with the Northern victory and mistake it for the righteousness of their intentions.

Yes, if you base your historical perspective on what individual soldiers have in their heads that motivate them

But on a lager scale, the South started the War when a President got elected who was against expanding slavery West.. That's what did it.

There were also Southern Political idea's about States Rights but that did not start the War nor was it the actual cause. Slavery was.

The funny thing is that their idea's about States Rights greatly contributed to their defeat. It turned out to be a Cluster ... The States, being "Sovereign" wouldn't cooperate with each other...So you ended up with bare foot soldiers in rags while NC had warehouses full of shoes that they were saving for their "own" soldiers...

In other words, you are saying that the South, believing that the government was instituted by the consent of those governed to secure their rights, decided to abolish it and institute a new government as the Union became destructive towards the ends of securing their rights?

I think you are right in that this was the primary causus belli.

I understand the many ways Treason can be rationalized. It's like how heretics within Christianity argue from scripture.. Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let other Nations get set up in the entire hemisphere much less within our boarders. The Balkanization of the United States would have been a tragedy on an immense scale. The World would be a far different place, much worse by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of all the enslaved peoples and the new slaves the Confederates coveted..

So defeating evil is always a good thing. Paperwork to follow.

There are many ways that tyranny can be rationalized. It's like how the heretics within Christianity argue from scripture... Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let our rightful King maintain dominion over us. The subjection of the people to a government they did not concede to has been a tragedy on the immense scale. The World would have been a far different place, much better by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of the Native Americans already subjected to genocide and the future treaties the Federals eventually did break.

So fighting against evil is always a good thing.

Even if you lose.

Its amazing how people who are purportedly "Conservatives" dislike the United States and wish it had collapsed long ago.

I rest my case

The war was fought over the ideals of the nation. If the government was not going to rule by the consent of the people then it had already died. If the North had been conciliatory to the South perhaps both the Union and the ideal of the nation could have been salvaged. When Lincoln sent military forces to invade the Southern states, it was assured that one of the two would die.

You may need to look at a timeline.. Virginia seceded in April 1861. The Battle of Sharpsburg was fought in July of 1861.

State Date of SecessionSouth Carolina December 20, 1860Mississippi January 9, 1861Florida January 10, 1861Alabama January 11, 1861Georgia January 19, 1861Louisiana January 26, 1861Texas February 1, 1861Virginia April 17, 1861Arkansas May 6, 1861North Carolina May 20, 1861Tennessee June 8, 1861

Some people get confused with the Northern victory and mistake it for the righteousness of their intentions.

Yes, if you base your historical perspective on what individual soldiers have in their heads that motivate them

But on a lager scale, the South started the War when a President got elected who was against expanding slavery West.. That's what did it.

There were also Southern Political idea's about States Rights but that did not start the War nor was it the actual cause. Slavery was.

The funny thing is that their idea's about States Rights greatly contributed to their defeat. It turned out to be a Cluster ... The States, being "Sovereign" wouldn't cooperate with each other...So you ended up with bare foot soldiers in rags while NC had warehouses full of shoes that they were saving for their "own" soldiers...

In other words, you are saying that the South, believing that the government was instituted by the consent of those governed to secure their rights, decided to abolish it and institute a new government as the Union became destructive towards the ends of securing their rights?

I think you are right in that this was the primary causus belli.

I understand the many ways Treason can be rationalized. It's like how heretics within Christianity argue from scripture.. Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let other Nations get set up in the entire hemisphere much less within our boarders. The Balkanization of the United States would have been a tragedy on an immense scale. The World would be a far different place, much worse by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of all the enslaved peoples and the new slaves the Confederates coveted..

So defeating evil is always a good thing. Paperwork to follow.

There are many ways that tyranny can be rationalized. It's like how the heretics within Christianity argue from scripture... Just because it can be done, doesn't make it right.

Heck, we wouldn't even let our rightful King maintain dominion over us. The subjection of the people to a government they did not concede to has been a tragedy on the immense scale. The World would have been a far different place, much better by far IMHO.

That isn't even to mention the suffering of the Native Americans already subjected to genocide and the future treaties the Federals eventually did break.

So fighting against evil is always a good thing.

Even if you lose.

Its amazing how people who are purportedly "Conservatives" dislike the United States and wish it had collapsed long ago.

I rest my case

The war was fought over the ideals of the nation. If the government was not going to rule by the consent of the people then it had already died. If the North had been conciliatory to the South perhaps both the Union and the ideal of the nation could have been salvaged. When Lincoln sent military forces to invade the Southern states, it was assured that one of the two would die.

You may need to look at a timeline.. Virginia seceded in April 1861. The Battle of Sharpsburg was fought in July of 1861.

State Date of SecessionSouth Carolina December 20, 1860Mississippi January 9, 1861Florida January 10, 1861Alabama January 11, 1861Georgia January 19, 1861Louisiana January 26, 1861Texas February 1, 1861Virginia April 17, 1861Arkansas May 6, 1861North Carolina May 20, 1861Tennessee June 8, 1861

Ahh, the endless American pastime... arguing whether the Civil War was over states rights or slavery.

Next topic: arguing whether the US was founded as a Christian nation.

The majority of the American forefathers were Deists.

You are absolutely wrong to repeat this old secularist canard.

Can you offer proof for an opposition to the "old secularist canard" theory?

Hey, it's your claim: you list them all. If you can't provide a list, you're already in the wrong for claiming something you don't really know is true. And if you provide a list, I can well nigh guarantee that the evidence for the ones most likely to be named is speculative if not outright false. As far as I am aware, the only FF who claimed to be a deist was Tom Paine.

Ahh, the endless American pastime... arguing whether the Civil War was over states rights or slavery.

Next topic: arguing whether the US was founded as a Christian nation.

The majority of the American forefathers were Deists.

You are absolutely wrong to repeat this old secularist canard.

Can you offer proof for an opposition to the "old secularist canard" theory?

Hey, it's your claim: you list them all. If you can't provide a list, you're already in the wrong for claiming something you don't really know is true. And if you provide a list, I can well nigh guarantee that the evidence for the ones most likely to be named is speculative if not outright false. As far as I am aware, the only FF who claimed to be a deist was Tom Paine.

See? I knew that one would provoke debate. It is like throwing a goat to a pack of lions. They just can't help themselves.

Ahh, the endless American pastime... arguing whether the Civil War was over states rights or slavery.

Next topic: arguing whether the US was founded as a Christian nation.

The majority of the American forefathers were Deists.

You are absolutely wrong to repeat this old secularist canard.

Can you offer proof for an opposition to the "old secularist canard" theory?

Hey, it's your claim: you list them all. If you can't provide a list, you're already in the wrong for claiming something you don't really know is true. And if you provide a list, I can well nigh guarantee that the evidence for the ones most likely to be named is speculative if not outright false. As far as I am aware, the only FF who claimed to be a deist was Tom Paine.

See? I knew that one would provoke debate. It is like throwing a goat to a pack of lions. They just can't help themselves.

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Too bad he ignored the rest of the paragraph where all men are created equal can be found.

So, did he do anything to free Irish wage slaves from the Northern companies? Living on company land, buying at company stores. Perhaps the Southerners should have wizened up and given their slaves wages minus deductions for living arrangements, food, and clothing. If they wanted to go to another plantation they could have just beat them to death or have shot them.

At least he was consistent in shooting down recommendations that the draft be used, as that would be coercing men to fight against their will, much like slavery forced them to work. Oh wait, he didn't.

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Too bad he ignored the rest of the paragraph where all men are created equal can be found.

So, did he do anything to free Irish wage slaves from the Northern companies? Living on company land, buying at company stores. Perhaps the Southerners should have wizened up and given their slaves wages minus deductions for living arrangements, food, and clothing. If they wanted to go to another plantation they could have just beat them to death or have shot them.

At least he was consistent in shooting down recommendations that the draft be used, as that would be coercing men to fight against their will, much like slavery forced them to work. Oh wait, he didn't.

Lincoln was a tyrant and a bloody-handed hypocrite.

Truer words were rarely, if ever spoken.

I believe it was Wendell Phillips who referred to Lincoln as a: "First rate, second rate man."

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Too bad he ignored the rest of the paragraph where all men are created equal can be found.

So, did he do anything to free Irish wage slaves from the Northern companies? Living on company land, buying at company stores. Perhaps the Southerners should have wizened up and given their slaves wages minus deductions for living arrangements, food, and clothing. If they wanted to go to another plantation they could have just beat them to death or have shot them.

At least he was consistent in shooting down recommendations that the draft be used, as that would be coercing men to fight against their will, much like slavery forced them to work. Oh wait, he didn't.

Lincoln was a tyrant and a bloody-handed hypocrite.

LOL..One specious argument after another.

It's a real stretch to compare Chattel Slavery with "Wage Slavery"... As bad as factory conditions were in the 1860's and other labor no one could sell your children or your wife...Grow up

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Too bad he ignored the rest of the paragraph where all men are created equal can be found.

So, did he do anything to free Irish wage slaves from the Northern companies? Living on company land, buying at company stores. Perhaps the Southerners should have wizened up and given their slaves wages minus deductions for living arrangements, food, and clothing. If they wanted to go to another plantation they could have just beat them to death or have shot them.

At least he was consistent in shooting down recommendations that the draft be used, as that would be coercing men to fight against their will, much like slavery forced them to work. Oh wait, he didn't.

Lincoln was a tyrant and a bloody-handed hypocrite.

LOL..One specious argument after another.

It's a real stretch to compare Chattel Slavery with "Wage Slavery"... As bad as factory conditions were in the 1860's and other labor no one could sell your children or your wife...Grow up

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Factory slave or plantation slave, either one beats the hell out of what the bluebellies would do to you if you were an Indian.

How about forcing someone to fight? Forcing someone to take a minie ball to the gut is pretty immoral. Especially when it is not a matter of defense but rather to subjugate another people. And then hanging them if they leave or resist.

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Too bad he ignored the rest of the paragraph where all men are created equal can be found.

So, did he do anything to free Irish wage slaves from the Northern companies? Living on company land, buying at company stores. Perhaps the Southerners should have wizened up and given their slaves wages minus deductions for living arrangements, food, and clothing. If they wanted to go to another plantation they could have just beat them to death or have shot them.

At least he was consistent in shooting down recommendations that the draft be used, as that would be coercing men to fight against their will, much like slavery forced them to work. Oh wait, he didn't.

Lincoln was a tyrant and a bloody-handed hypocrite.

LOL..One specious argument after another.

It's a real stretch to compare Chattel Slavery with "Wage Slavery"... As bad as factory conditions were in the 1860's and other labor no one could sell your children or your wife...Grow up

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Factory slave or plantation slave, either one beats the hell out of what the bluebellies would do to you if you were an Indian.

How about forcing someone to fight? Forcing someone to take a minie ball to the gut is pretty immoral. Especially when it is not a matter of defense but rather to subjugate another people. And then hanging them if they leave or resist.

You're all over the map..That is because it's really hard to defend slavery. Your comparisons fall very short. IMHO

My my aren't we politically correct all of a sudden. The Indians did their fair share of butchery too:

On August 17, 1862, one young Dakota with a hunting party of three others killed five settlers while on a hunting expedition. That night a council of Dakota decided to attack settlements throughout the Minnesota River valley to try to drive whites out of the area. There has never been an official report on the number of settlers killed, although figures as high as 800 have been cited.

Over the next several months, continued battles pitting the Dakota against settlers and later, the United States Army, ended with the surrender of most of the Dakota bands.[4] By late December 1862, soldiers had taken captive more than a thousand Dakota, who were interned in jails in Minnesota. After trials and sentencing, 38 Dakota were hanged on December 26, 1862, in the largest one-day execution in American history. In April 1863, the rest of the Dakota were expelled from Minnesota to Nebraska and South Dakota. The United States Congress abolished their reservations.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 03:12:48 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

If it meant the South expanding slavery into Latin America, leaving a trail of destruction in their path, tearing the nation apart and delaying Civil Rights and liberties by at least 100 years, I'd genocide them and feel no remorse.

I'm not saying the Union was perfect either, but they were sure of a heck a lot better than the South. I mean, hey, it's either us or them.